Judgment :- 1. By order dated 22.10.2002 in W.P. No. 38991/2002 this Court directed the first respondent therein to consider the representation dated 3.7.2002, stated to have been sent by the petitioner to him, if not already considered and disposed of, within 30 days from the date of production of a copy of the order in the writ petition before the first respondent. Complaining that the first respondent has not complied with the direction referred to above and such failure has a direct impact on the pending proceedings namely, M.C.O.P. No. 1060/2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No. 2), Tirunelveli, the Insurance Company is before this Court in this contempt petition. The contempt petition was admitted and notice was ordered. After service, the proceedings underwent a few adjournments. Ultimately, the representation dated 3.7.2002 of the petitioner had met with a written response from the respondent in the contempt petition, which reveal a startling state of affairs in making a claim in the pending motor accident claim case before the fast track court referred to above. 2. Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan learned counsel for the petitioner would state that admittedly the response of the respondent in the contempt petition to the earlier order of this court is belated. But none-the-less, he would request this Court not to take serious note of that fact but to close the contempt petition. However, before closing the contempt proceeding, the learned counsel wanted this court to send a message to the Law Enforcing Agency in this State about the callous and indifferent manner in which the Law Enforcing Agency is treating the complaint/complaints already given/to be given by the Insurance Companies complaining of fabricated records, to make it appear as though a particular vehicle is involved in a road traffic accident, so as to bolster all false claims of such alleged victims. In support of his case, the learned would state that there is a racket going on in this State involving the handwork of a number of people from all fields, in fabricating the records at the police station level as well as at the hospital level and those records are used to give colour to a motor accident claim before various tribunals. According to him that whenever the Insurance Company, shown as the insurer of the vehicle in question, has reason to raise its eyebrows and file a complaint before the concerned police, there appears to be either no response or only a lethargic response. This, according to the learned counsel, would amount to exposing various Insurance Companies to bogus claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, resulting in substantial monetary loss. In other words, according to the learned counsel, liability is fastened on the Insurance Company on fabricated records. A number of statements in the press are also produced before this court in and by which such a large scale on-going racket has been brought out. Learned counsel had also filed a tabular statement containing details of various cases pending before various claims tribunals filed against the Insurance Company in question, which according to him, are suspended to be on fabricated records. 3. In the light of the above material, this Court thought fit to have the assistance of the State Public Prosecutor as to how best this menace could be stopped. Accordingly Mr. I. Subramaniam learned senior counsel and State Public Prosecutor assisted this Court. As already stated, the written reply sent by the respondent in the contempt petition to the petitioners representation dated 3.7.2002 prima facie discloses a sorry state of affairs. If those materials are found to be true, then it brings a disgrace to the noble legal profession. The argument put forward before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, persons practising medical profession and persons in police service are also not far off from this rot. Having regard to the entire spectrum, the learned State Public Prosecutor would state that the situation as projected before this Court is really very grievous and warrants effective steps to curb the menace. Learned State Public Prosecutor would also add that the State is not logging behind in extending an helping hand to save the Insurance Company from such bogus claims and in fact, when such instances were brought to the notice of the Law Enforcing Agency, investigation had been ordered. Learned State Public Prosecutor would also add that the State is not logging behind in extending an helping hand to save the Insurance Company from such bogus claims and in fact, when such instances were brought to the notice of the Law Enforcing Agency, investigation had been ordered. It is also the submission of the learned State Public Prosecutor that having regard to the ramification of the issues involved, which appear to be in the entire breadth and width of the State, it is desirable that one Central Agency may be constituted to look into complaints of the types referred to above, so that the investigation may proceed on the right direction and in all earnestness. Having regard to the issues involved, which may disclose the involvement of many persons in the various fields namely, legal, police and medicine, I am of the opinion that a Central Agency headed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBCID, Chennai may be constituted for the purpose of looking into all complaints relating to bogus claims, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, filed based on fabricated records. Accordingly a Central Agency having its office at Chennai headed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBCID is constituted as the Agency to investigate complaints of this type. Whenever complaints of such types are given to the Central Agency so constituted, the Central Agency may have the complaints investigated by itself by any of the officers attached to it or transfer the investigation to any officer of competent jurisdiction within whose jurisdiction the cause of action for filing a motor accident case has arisen. In the event of transferring the work of investigation to any officer other than an officer attached to the Central Agency, the Central Agency shall keep monitoring the investigation to be done by the officer to whom the work has been transferred. The Central Agency shall take every endeavour to complete the investigation in respect of crimes so brought to its notice within 60 days from the date of receipt of such a complaint and file the final report before the court having jurisdiction over the area where the cause of action Las arisen. The date of filing of the final report and the court before which it is to be filed, shall also be informed to the complainant well in advance. 4. The date of filing of the final report and the court before which it is to be filed, shall also be informed to the complainant well in advance. 4. With the above direction and finding no contempt having been committed, the notice already issued stands discharged. Consequently the contempt petition is dismissed.